Hy mi name is Daniel Coutinho I am From Brazil, and i am one of the guys how works with mark on DBMA semenaries here in Brazil. Today i don´t came hre to talk about martial arts, but about the great political problem here in Brazil, for almost 12 year, we have this lefties comand the country. Wen you guys readed about corruption, or, any political crimes here in Brazil, they have one adress the PT, Partido dos Trabalhadores, Labors Party. This red and white criminals are enemies of the people, they steal, destroy and are breaking ower country a part. And wend i say Breaking the contry, they really are loosing almost half of Brazil this movement to separet indians from the country, they will make all the indian lands separeted countries. The Brazillians don´t wanna this, on the past ower families fight to make ower country big as it is! We fight for ower lands, and now the disgusting commies, will try to break ower society. But the comom brazillians don´t wanna be apart of that. on this video the people are sayng to the president (The lesbian comunist ex terrorist, bank robber, drug adicted, and more disgusting things) to fuck her self!

On octuber we will take then from presidence and we will got ower country back. Free from commies!

They have this sick plan to make the south america an new soviet union the Foro de São Paulo is a meeting to work about this, fidel castro (the cuba monster) Evo morales, e all of this guys, including some Farcs are inviteds... This will end in the end of the year!

Know that we here do not know much about the politics and economics of Brazil so do not be surprised if your posts do not receive much commentary at first. Do not worry, we will be reading and learning.

Yes! Honored to hear about what is happening first hand. I am am encouraged by your optimism. I hope you are correct about throwing the leftists out this year. The fight for individual freedom over state power needs to go on across the globe. It is a difficult fight. Brazil certainly has the potential to grow a great and free economy for the benefit of all the people.

When Brazil was awarded the right to host the 2014 World Cup almost seven years ago, the nation's soccer fanatics were elated. But none more so than Brazil's political class, which understood that the tournament would mean a rash of federal spending all over the country.

Yet hosting the World Cup isn't turning out to be a winner for President Dilma Rousseff, who took office in 2010 and is up for re-election in October. Polls now indicate she may fail to garner the 50% plus one that she will need to avoid a runoff—and a victory in a second round is far from certain. Why this is so is worth parsing.

In 2007 then-president Lula da Silva —also of the Workers' Party—was at the headquarters of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, or FIFA, in Zurich when the hosting decision was announced. He seized the moment like any good populist: "Soccer is not only a sport for us. It's more than that: Soccer for us is a passion, a national passion." He then promised that Brazil would do its "homework" to make the country ready.

Brazil spent some 25.8 billion reais ($11.3 billion) to deliver on Lula's pledge and despite countless cost overruns and delays, the 12 stadiums are ready. On Thursday in São Paulo, third-ranked Brazil opened the tournament with a 3-1 victory against 18th-ranked Croatia.

Brazil is hoping to erase the painful memory of a final-match loss to Uruguay in 1950, the last time the country hosted the World Cup. If the home team wins it all this year, there will be a party like never before.

Yet for almost a year many middle-class Brazilians have been complaining bitterly about the government's decision to host the tournament. In a recent Pew Research Center survey 61% of respondents disapproved, which seems contrary to the feverish love Brazilians have for soccer. As it turns out, this sour attitude has little to do with the World Cup.

The headline news has focused on public protests against the lavish stadiums. Yet keen observers will note that antigovernment street demonstrations which began big and largely peaceful have since dwindled in size while becoming more disruptive and dangerous. That's because the middle class, which rejects the violence, has learned that it has little control over where extremists take things. The killing of a photojournalist during a protest in Rio de Janeiro in February may have been the last straw.

The small hard left remains on the streets, clashing with police. All along it has been behind the roadblocks and property damage that the uninitiated mistakenly interpreted as a popular cry for a violent uprising. These organizers and instigators know that Brazil's politicians will go a long way to avoid using force. They also know that the World Cup provides an international showcase for their collectivist grievances, which are bound to find sympathy in the salons of Paris and New York.Enlarge Image

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff (C) reacts during the FIFA World Cup 2014 group A preliminary round match between Brazil and Croatia at the Arena Corinthians in Sao Paulo, Brazil, 12 June 2014. European Pressphoto Agency

That's why they have bused homeless people—and Brazilians in indigenous dress holding bows and arrows—to the stadiums. The government has deployed riot police and used tear gas in some places to keep the peace. In a country where it is not hard to find someone to pay you to show up to a protest and someone else to pay you to go away, mobilizing a menacing group can be a good business.

Public-sector unions aren't about to be left out of the fun. Subway workers demanding higher wages in São Paulo went on strike last week. The union called off the strike the day before the opening match but said it makes no promises about the rest of the month. The ground staff at Rio de Janeiro airports went on a partial strike opening day.

Ms. Rousseff can handle unions and mob organizers—they only want money. As to re-election, she will count on party patronage, her cronies in business, and the large constituencies her government has built by expanding entitlements.

Outside of her control, though, is the rising middle class. It has put down its placards and left the streets but its discontent remains palpable. Brazil, as one resident put it to me, "is not in a party mood."

The stadium spending is the least of it. The real problem is that Lula and Dilma promised a dynamic new Brazil flush with opportunity, and Brazilians dared to dream. Now 12 years after Lula took office, jobs are hard to come by and inflation at more than 6% devours purchasing power. In April real gross domestic product contracted 2.3% year over year. Regulation and taxes crush entrepreneurs while the government finances Cuba. The only reliable daily news out of Brasilia is the corruption scandals, and the only people getting rich seem to be party hacks and their business partners.

Brazilians know that something is wrong that soccer games will not fix. Their gripe is not with the World Cup. It's with Dilma.

Brazil Sticks With StatismOdds are that the country’s reputation for economic mediocrity is safe for another four years.By Mary Anastasia O’GradyOct. 26, 2014 7:30 p.m. ET

An economic recession, inflation running at 6.7% and revelations of an audacious skimming scheme at the state-owned oil company Petrobras were not enough to deny Brazilian Workers’ Party (PT) President Dilma Rousseff re-election to a second term on Sunday.

With 99% of the vote counted, the incumbent led with 51.56% of the vote against challenger Aécio Neves, of the Social Democratic Party of Brazil, with 48.44%.

Ms. Rousseff ran as the anti-market, welfare-state candidate, which may be why she fared far better in the poor, dependent north than she did in the prosperous agricultural heartland and here in Brazil’s largest city, where the economy relies heavily on services and value-added manufacturing.

Like the U.S., Brazil has its upper-class, urban voters who feel virtuous backing state intervention in other peoples’ lives and supporting Cuba’s military dictatorship. But there is also an aspirational Brazil—which is made up of risk-taking entrepreneurs, globally competitive farmers and a rising middle class that hungers for greater engagement with the world. These Brazilians badly want the change Mr. Neves represented. They made Sunday’s contest the closest in Brazilian history.

Like the proverbial dog that caught the car, Ms. Rousseff now has to figure out what to do with her next four years. She may believe she can further the consolidation of PT power—her highest goal—if she sticks to the policy mix she has been using thus far, no matter the cost to the economy. Alternatively, she could make pragmatic economic adjustments with the goal of restoring confidence and growth.

The latter is certainly possible. But it is unlikely because the party militants, who have fattened up during PT rule, want more power, not less. She may utter some conciliatory statements and in the short run take some small steps that favor liberty, just as her PT mentor, former President Lula da Silva (2003-10), did when he first took office in order to calm markets that were plummeting out of fear. But Lula soon reverted to form.

Odds are that Ms. Rousseff will do the same, making Brazil’s legendary reputation for mediocrity safe for another four years. Only if a criminal investigation proves that Ms. Rousseff and Lula knew about the graft at Petrobras are things likely to go differently.

The great irony of the campaign is that while Ms. Rousseff and Lula claimed the credit for Brazil’s turn-of-the-century revival, they both opposed the reforms of the 1990s. The privatization of state companies, the limited opening to foreign competition, and the 1994 “Brazilian real” currency plan to defeat hyperinflation all stimulated development and made more generous welfare programs, the trademark of the PT, possible.

But the PT never followed through on those reforms and the “Brazilian miracle” died in the crib. At best the country runs in the middle of the emerging-market pack. More often it brings up the rear.

Neither Lula nor Ms. Rousseff seem to care about development. According to Goldman Sachs , from 2004-13 government spending grew at almost 8% a year, in real terms, which was more than twice the rate of GDP growth. Inflation is now 7% year-over-year on prices for goods and services not regulated by price controls and 8.6% for services alone. Inflationary expectations are rising.

Ms. Rousseff thought she could fix the problem by capping the price of gasoline, which is supplied by Petrobras, and of ethanol, which is made by local sugar mills and used to make flex-fuel. But since production costs are not capped, Petrobras and the sugar mills are sustaining large losses. Some sugar mills are already bankrupt and others that I talked to said they won’t survive if the policy continues.

The PT boasts about helping the poor with welfare but what it gives with one hand it takes—and more—with the other. Rising protectionism, steep payroll and consumption taxes, lousy infrastructure and heavy labor regulation are hidden costs that make all Brazilians worse off.

More worrying is the damage the PT might do to institutions and the rule of law over another 48 months. Civil society here jealously guards civil liberties and pluralism. But as one astute businessman told me, “We are noticing, bit by bit, a trend toward copying Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador. The tendency is to reduce democracy.” One example is Ms. Rousseff’s May decree empowering “popular councils,” which would move the country away from representative democracy à la Venezuela. Congress has so far refused to approve the measure but if the usual vote-buying goes on, that may change.

This is creepy for anyone who has read history. As the 18th-century political philosopher David Hume observed, “It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” Today Mrs. Rousseff is a politician who won an election. But Brazilians may someday learn that the one-party state and indefinite rule are the real long-term projects of the PT.

Brazil Sticks With StatismOdds are that the country’s reputation for economic mediocrity is safe for another four years.By Mary Anastasia O’Grady

Nice analysis. Too bad that potentially great countries like Brazil, (and Argentina, Venezuela and others) can't get their act together. (And too bad we don't set a better example.) Vote for failed policies, expect better results. Good luck with that. Only bright spot was that it turned out to be a close election.

I like this quote: “It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.”

SÃO PAULO — When Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff emerged from a meeting with President Barack Obama on the sidelines of the Summit of the Americas in Panama City in April, she was in surprisingly good spirits. She looked healthier and more energetic than she had in months as she stepped up to the microphone for a press conference. She was all smiles as she described an upcoming trip to Washington, planned for June 30.

Rousseff, who was re-elected in October with only 51.6 percent of the vote, faces a spiraling corruption scandal at home and the lowest approval rating since her party took power in 2003. And her government has been clashing with Washington off-and-on for two years. So her cheery demeanor after meeting Obama was not what the room full of journalists was expecting when she stepped out for the press conference.

“It means we recognize the actions taken by the U.S. … that friendly countries won’t be spied on,” Rousseff said. “And we have a declaration from President Obama. When he wants to know something, he’ll call me.”

To see Rousseff place this kind of trust in the United States would have been unthinkable less than two years ago. In September 2013, after Edward Snowden revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) spied on Rousseff and Brazil’s national oil company, Petrobras, the Brazilian president emerged as one of the foremost critics of U.S. spying programs. She canceled a planned state visit to the White House and her government considered introducing laws that would have forced companies like Google and Facebook to store their data within Brazil, imposing considerable cost in order to subject them to local privacy laws.

But now, it seems that Rousseff has backed down on confronting the United States over its spying and surveillance. Weakened at home politically and economically, she can no longer afford a rift with a powerful and important ally like the United States, experts and analysts say.

“The government is basically in emergency mode,” said Igor Fuser, a professor of international relations at the ABC Federal University in São Paulo. “So in the international arena, the position is maximum caution; a posture of reconciliation with traditional allies, and avoidance at all costs of anything that could cause any friction.”

While standing up to the United States can play well with Rousseff’s base, her current challenges come from the right, which has long accused her of being irresponsibly leftist in foreign policy, and has gone as far as calling for her impeachment this year. Shoring up relations with Washington, and meeting with Obama as an equal, can provide a much-needed boost to her legitimacy.

For a while, it looked like a resurgent, left-leaning Brazil, governed by a woman who had been tortured by a U.S.-backed military dictatorship, would be matched only by Germany’s post-DDR Angela Merkel in leading the charge among friends of the United States against America’s global intelligence programs.

After Rousseff canceled her planned 2013 meeting with Obama, she took her case to the United Nations. During that September’s General Assembly, she delivered a lengthy scolding against a “global electronic spying network” based in the United States. “Meddling this way in the lives of other countries violates international law and is an affront to the principles that should govern relations among nations, especially allies…. [T]he security of one country’s citizens can never be guaranteed by violating the fundamental human and civic rights of citizens in other countries,” she said from the podium in Turtle Bay. “We have informed the U.S. government of our protest, demanding explanations, apology, and guarantees that these actions will not be repeated.”

She went on to propose a “multilateral civil rights framework” governing the global Internet, aimed at establishing privacy standards and human rights online around the world. In April 2014, Brazil hosted the Net Mundial Conference, a meeting of government officials, experts, and academics to discuss the future of Internet governance. By year’s end, Brazil and Germany had presented and passed at the U.N. a resolution calling for all countries to guarantee privacy online, saying “that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online.”

Rousseff went on the offensive domestically, too. In October 2013, her allies in the legislature introduced amendments to a planned “Internet bill of rights” in response to the scandal. The Marco Civil da Internet had already sought to guarantee privacy and net neutrality in Brazil, but following revelations from Snowden that major Internet companies were sharing data with the NSA, Brazilian legislators introduced provisions that would force companies such as Google and Facebook to store their data on Brazilian soil, where the government could apply rigorous privacy standards — and keep the NSA’s prying eyes out. The final version, passed in February 2014, modified this provision due to fears that it would lead to high costs for Brazilian Internet users and put a financial strain on for companies doing business in Brazil — especially smaller firms. Instead, the Brazilian Congress insisted that foreign companies be subject to local judicial proceedings if they were to be proved to be violating privacy statues, even if the data is stored abroad.

Through 2014 and early 2015, Brazil and the United States remained publicly at odds over spying and privacy. Rousseff never received the public apology from the United States that she demanded in front of the U.N. — or even the public guarantee that the behavior would not be repeated.

So what explains Dilma’s apparent about face? A well-placed official in the Brazilian government, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Rousseff-Obama rapprochement involved concessions from Washington.

“The American government’s posture did change. The [U.S.] president made it clear in his last conversation with Rousseff in Panama that if he wanted to know something about Brazil or the president, he will call her and not use other means,” he said. “And we have to trust in the word of the head of state.”

“She communicated that it was central that she couldn’t [again] be surprised by revelations that the U.S. is spying Brazil,” he added, noting that Obama may not have been able to apologize or make public promises due to internal political concerns.

The Obama administration has been pushing a modest intelligence reform agenda in Washington. Earlier this month, Congress passed the USA Freedom Act, which reversed some of the more invasive provisions of the 2001 Patriot Act. But experts on U.S.-Latin America relations note that the White House has not publicly mentioned anything about the NSA changing the way it deals with citizens of foreign countries. Nevertheless, many believe that the reconciliation with Brazil could provide an opportunity to work more productively with the region’s largest power.

“The U.S. is hopefully coming to the recognition that it has a really difficult time carrying out an agenda in Latin America without being able to cooperate with Brazil,” said Peter Hakim, president emeritus of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington think tank.

Washington has an ambitious agenda in Latin America. The Obama administration is working toward repairing relations with Cuba, and also sees the need for better trade relations with Brazil. The two countries have a “paltry trade relationship” that “doesn’t make sense,” outside of their inability to cooperate, said Hakim.

The month before the Panama City summit, the United States classified Venezuela as a “national security threat” to the United States, a move that allows the United States to impose sanctions on Caracas. That was received badly by Latin American leaders.

“In the case of the flap over the Venezuelan sanctions, if the U.S. government had sat down with the Brazilians, the Brazilians would have said, ‘Don’t do it.’ Or they would have said, ‘Don’t do it before the summit, at least. You’re ruining an opportunity to highlight your reconciliation with Cuba,’” Hakim said.

But it’s not just Washington’s regional agenda that has helped lay the groundwork for the mending of relations. Rousseff might not be able to afford to strike the defiant tone of 2013, when problems in her previously very popular government had just begun to appear. At home and abroad, her government has been badly weakened by an economic downturn and a huge corruption scandal, and she is far more eager these days to build alliances and create positive headlines than to try to change the global intelligence system.

Since her narrow re-election, in which she played up her left-wing credentials, Rousseff’s government has had to embark on an unpopular austerity program to shore up public finances. At the same time, she has faced protest movements calling for her impeachment over the massive corruption scandal at Petrobras.

“Rousseff needs the United States, especially in the context of a slowing Brazilian economy,” said João Augusto de Castro Neves, an analyst for the Eurasia group, noting that the country is in need of investment for infrastructure and oil. No investment partnerships or trade deals have been announced, but could come alongside Rousseff’s visit to Washington at the end of the month.

In the first decade of the 21st century, Brazil and others in Latin America saw their economies surge and found themselves empowered to take on Washington politically. Rousseff’s predecessor, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, pushed a “counter-hegemonic” strategy alongside the other emerging powers around the world and the left-leaning governments of Latin America. But most have been hit by economic or political problems as the Chinese economy slowed, ending the global commodity boom.

“It’s not a radical break. But the trend is to go in a more conservative direction rather than a leftist or anti-systemic direction,” Fuser said.

Brazil announces Russian Pantsir S1 missile to be medium-range defense system Business | Brazil | 17-Sep-2015Brazilian Vice President Michel Temer announced that the Pantsir-S1 missile system would be the Brazilian military’s medium range missile defense system of choice during a visit to Russian. After meeting with Russian Prime Minister Dimitri Medvedev during the 7th Russian-Brazilian High Level Cooperation Committee in Moscow on 16 September 2015, Temer make the formal announcement although the purchase will be delayed. The agreement, valued at US$1 billion, is conditional on Brazil having adequate financial resources, which they expect to have in order by 2017. The missiles will be manufactured in Brazil up to six years after the official contract by Brazil’s Permanent Combat Evaluation for Combat Aircraft (COPAC) is signed by both countries. The KBP Instrument Design Bureau, who developed the Pantsir-S1, will be commercially compensated in Russian Rubles.